Mower County transcript. [volume] (Lansing, Minn.) 1868-1915, 1887-11-23
ASKS TO BE RELIEVED.


ASKS TO BE RELIEVED. 4.
Land Commissioner Sparks Tenders His
Realgnati0n - a Re,y to Secretary
Lamari In Which HI Defends His Course
In the Omaha Land Grant Case.
WARRINGTON, Nov 16. Land Commission
or Sparks last evening personally delivered
to the President the following letter, de-
finding his course in the Chicago ST Paul,
Minneapolis h Omaha land grant case, and
formally resigned his office:
81 DEPARTMENT. or THE INTERIOR. GENERAL
LAND OFFICE, WASHINGTON, Nov. 15.-ZO
the President: The honorable Secretary OF the
Interior advises me by letter dated the 18th
inst, in effect, that he should on that date pre-.
sent to you the alternative Of select
ing new Secretary OF the Interior
or new Commissioner of the General
Land Office, in view of which I have felt
called upon to address you this letter. Under
the authority vested in the Commissioner by
the laws and in accordance with regulations
and practice pursuant to law, by which action
Is first taken In the General Land Once in all
matters relating to public lands, had, pre-
vious to September, 1887, made adjustments Of
certain railroad land grants, two of which,
known as the Omaha cases, I had been special
ly directed by the Secretary to report.
ION October 2, 1887, two decisions OF the Sec-
rotary were rendered in the Omaha cases, non
concurring in my adjustments and overruling
the authority on which they were based. He
directed me ut the same time to cause the
grants to be adjusted In conformity with said
decisions. The point at issue related to the
claim OF railroad companies to indemnity for
lands that, under railroad granting acts were
reserved from the operation of those acts by
| express terms Of the statutes.
"Previous to 1876 lands that had been re-
served by the Government for Indian and other
purposes, and which were excluded from the
grants and from the operation of the granting
acts, had been patented or certified to the COM
panies, both as granted lands and as indemnity,
promiscuously with other lands. This seems to
have been done in pursuance of q practice of
giving railroad companies whatever they ssked
for, apparently without much consideration of
| the restrictions and limitations of the grants
In that year the title to large quantity of such
lands IN the State OF Kansas which had been 80
enormously conveyed to the Leavenworth, Law
renee s. Galveston Railroad Company, was de-
creed invalid by the United States Supreme
Court. Since that date, or for the past twelve
years, lands that were reserved at date
of grant, or date OF the definite location of the
roads, as the case may be, have been regarded
and treated in the decisions and practice Of
this office and department as excluded not only
from all the grants, but from the indemnity
basis under all grants wherein such reserved
lands are by the terms of the law excluded
from the operation Of the acts
'sThe Secretary held in the Omaha cases that
the company was entitled TO indemnity for such
lands This decision, II adhered to. will have
the effect to take from the people many million
acres OF land within railroad indemnity limits
which by your advice and with your approval,
as expressed in the Guilford Miller case, have
been proclaimed to the country as restored
to the public domain. The question of the
correctness of these decisions became, there
fore, matter OF momentous concern. II they
correctly declared the law these lands belong
to the railroad companies II they did not cor
rectly declare the law the lands belonged to
the people, The Omaha decisions purport to
be founded upon the decision OF the Supreme
Court In the case of the Winona g. St. Peter
Railroad Company vs.. Barney (118 U. S., 618).
1T appeared to me that the decision OF the
Supreme Court in the Barney cases was abso.
)utely silent upon the question decided in the
Omaha cases, and that not even the obiter Of
the court sustained these decisions, and it
seemed that the rule Of statutory Interpretation
adopted in the Omaha cases was the opposite
OF the rule OF construction adopted by the courts
and laid down by law writers. I was, there
fore, profoundly convinced that the Secretary
had been committed to errors of law, which, ii
brought fully to his personal attention, might
be corrected.
.'It is the practice Of the department to per-
NIT representatives OF railroad companies nnd
other private interests to npply for reviews and
recons derations OF deois ons when questions
3 q decided against such interests. I believed
that, as the officer Of the Government having
Immediate guardianship of the public lands,
and immed. ate charge OF the issuance Of
patents under all grants OF land by Congress,
I had at least equal right with repre-
sentatives OF private interests to ask the Sec
rotary OF the Interior to re-examne depart
mental decision. And I believe it especially
proper to express my views to the Secretary in
these cases because had not, but would have
done so, the original instance, il had
anticipated o change OF ruling and decision
upon the point In question. Accordingly
! waited upon the Secretary and personally
expressed to him my desire to have q
review Of the decisions In these cases. He
suggested to me to let the matter rest for the
present. in which suggestion OF course cheer
fully acqu:esced. On November 10 received a
note from the Secretary desiring me to presen,
to him what had to say upon this subject. My
letter was accordingly signed and delivered to
him on the 11th inst
"Several important questions were decided
In the Omaha cases other than the one re-
ferred to herein, which justly call for consider
alton upon the point OF agreement with or
contravent!on OF decisions OF the Supreme
Court of the United States, but confined my
application for review to the question OF 'in-
demnfty for lands excluded from the opera
ton Of granting acts, that being OF overshad.
owing importance.
81, 10 but Just to say that the published CON-
municat!on addressed to me and laid before you
ia no answer to my letter applying for review.
The issue raised by me was strictly one Of law.
Tue presentation OF the issue was strictly In
the line OF legal argument. In the letter ad-
dressed to me the issue is not met, and the
effect has been to create the erroneous impress
sion that the issue was one of authority alone,
and that had refused to execute the Score
tary's ofacial orders. This diversion of the is-
sue from ono Of legal construction to one OF au-
t, 'rty and Naturalization, 10 tho substitution,
Of force for argument; . diversion Of the pub
lie mind from the merits OF the case.
'"The ONCE OF Commissioner OF the General
Land once hos been one OF intense labor, i'm
posing o constant sense Of high responsibility.
Having sought 1t OF your hands have continued
to hold 1t only out OF q sense Of duty, with .
view OF efiecting some good to the public.
have endeavored to discharge my full